Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Mitochondria and the Prevention of Death 453

H_Fisher writes "Research into mitochondria — small structures within a cell that have their own DNA — suggests that they may be a cause of cellular death, according to Newsweek. The article The Science of Death: Reviving the Dead reports on people who have recovered from sudden death due to cardiac arrest through the use of medically induced hypothermia. The cooling process may help stop the death of brain and heart cells initiated by the mitochondria once they are deprived of oxygen. The article goes on to probe delicately at the question of where a person's personality 'is' between death and later revival, and describes several ongoing scientific studies of near-death experiences."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mitochondria and the Prevention of Death

Comments Filter:
  • Space Travel (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jshriverWVU ( 810740 ) on Monday July 16, 2007 @10:36PM (#19883575)
    While I dont see this as a fountain of youth. This research could be very useful for long distant space travel. Especially as we are pondering going to Mars. I wonder how well this could be coupled with cryogenics.
  • Brilliant (Score:3, Interesting)

    by joe_bruin ( 266648 ) on Monday July 16, 2007 @10:40PM (#19883605) Homepage Journal
    So what they're saying is that the Mitochondria, the organelles that use oxygen to generate ATP (the primary source of chemical energy in your body), cause death when they no longer get oxygen? I hope the Nobel prize committee is listening.
  • by RiffRafff ( 234408 ) on Monday July 16, 2007 @10:55PM (#19883727) Homepage
    I was diagnosed with "sick sinus syndrome." Well, not until I had basically died a few times. The electrical impulses that cause the heart to fire, ceased. I flat-lined, and was essentially "dead." The first few times (twice at home, 2 or 3 times at the hospital) I came back on my own. There was no "where am I?" questions upon regaining consciousness; I knew where I was, and I knew _something_ had happened, but I didn't know what. It wasn't until the last "episode," after they had attached a heart monitor with the little sticky-pads that the doctors actually knew, for sure, that I was flat-lining. They immediately ran a catheter up my groin, into my heart, and attached to an external pace-maker. A day later they implanted a pace-maker. Now, almost three years later, the pace-maker's computer says it has never "paced." In other words, I haven't really needed it. :-/

    My point is this: when I was "dead," I never "left my body," I never saw myself and the doctors in the hospital from "above," I never experienced anything. It was like a light-switch was simply flipped. I was just gone. No angels, no bright light, nothing. So. My advice, for what it's worth, is that you should do whatever you need to do. Whatever you need to accomplish. If my experience is any indication, there is no second chance. Do it now. Don't expect anything else after you're gone. When you're gone, you're gone. There appears to be nothing else. And while that may not be what you wanted to hear, that was my reality.

    Don't live your life in fear of death, but don't take anything for granted, either. As Warren Zevon said, "enjoy every sandwich."

    (Of course, Zevon also said, "I think I made a tactical error by not going to the doctor earlier." So don't do that.)

  • Re:Thanks, but... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Mr. Slippery ( 47854 ) <tms&infamous,net> on Monday July 16, 2007 @11:06PM (#19883807) Homepage

    I prefer not to get my science from MSNBC and other mainstream media sources.

    Yeah. The info about cryogenic treatment for resuscitation was fine, but conflating that with cryonics was off-base, and bringing in near-death experiences was just dumb. There's nothing supernatural about such experiences, take the right drugs and you can have them yourself [near-death.com].

  • by Nefarious Wheel ( 628136 ) * on Monday July 16, 2007 @11:09PM (#19883837) Journal
    I never saw myself and the doctors in the hospital from above...

    Well, I did. 11 years old, skull fracture from little league game (I was pitching, before the hard hat rule (which I was told I instigated)). No pre-knowledge or exposure to such states, or even the concept of mortality -- never a church goer. Genuine OOB perception, howling winds, players gathered around my supine body, sound of my dad calling me back (he was the team's manager). Followed by aphasia, surgery, long recovery.

    Nothing has ever been really spookey since. Meh, it's life. Do the next thing.

  • Re:Space Travel (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ozphx ( 1061292 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @12:35AM (#19884325) Homepage
    Ok I know this is slashdot and so my audience is fairly limited, but:

    Have you ever been going at it so hard you fell off? Can you see yourself thrusting away and then losing grip on your partners sweat soaked body. Can you imagine the frustration of seeing her slowly drift away just out of reach?

    Down on earth we have gravity. In space the only thing that will halt your flying man-juice is some undoubtably important computer a hundred meters away on the other side of the station.

    Can you imagine floating gracefully in the middle of the room, hearing your roommate at the door, and the futile (yet hilarious) running in air as you try to retrieve your pants?

    Earth: Wet spot on covers.
    Space: Volume of small droplets.

    I think I've said enough. Keep your pants on Armstrong ;)
  • by jadin ( 65295 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @02:04AM (#19884705) Homepage
    But this is precisely what the bible teaches about death. [note: no one is required to read this]

    Dead cannot think:
    Psalms 146:4 His breath goes forth, he returns to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
    Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

    It also says the soul dies at death:
    Ezekiel 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinning, it shall die.
    Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

    Therefore the soul cannot think either. Aka no out of body experiences. Please note I'm not discussing heaven etc, just the state of the dead/soul.

    Hammer me down mods! [flamesuit="on"]
  • by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @02:04AM (#19884709)
    Some interesting thought experiments regarding consciousness are these:

    Suppose that, one day, we develop the technology required to scan and emulate the human brain with total precision. Now, this means that we can shove your head into the scanner, and presto, some amount of time later, we have a computer running a simulation of your brain. It's pretty clear that your consciousness stays in the same place, especially if anesthesia is not required for the scanning process. Yet there is a copy of your brain running on that computer. From its perspective, does it have the same sort of consciousness that you still do?

    Suppose that instead of just scanning your brain to make a copy, we instead put you under, scan your brain, start the simulation running, and kill your old body. We wake up your simulated brain. What happens to your consciousness? Have you achieved a mortality unencumbered by the failure of your biological body by doing this? From the perspective of your simulated brain, did you fall asleep and wake up running on the computer? What about from the perspective of your now dead physical body?

    Suppose that instead of scanning your brain, we can replace a portion of your brain with equivalent nanotech. For all purposes, this nanotech behaves exactly as your old neurons behave. The nanotech can be implanted gradually, neuron by neuron, on the fly - as each neuron is replaced and killed, the nanotech neuron takes its place and picks up exactly where the old neuron left off. So, we perform this procedure on you, and ultimately, your brain is replaced with its nanotech equivalent. What happens to your consciousness in this process? Is this sort of gradual process necessary for your consciousness to survive the transition from your old wetware to your new hardware?

    Is your consciousness an expression of a dynamical state - perhaps even including state variables we haven't detected yet - in your brain that must be preserved in order to survive any such transition, or do your memories suffice to keep your perception of consciousness continuous, even if most of that dynamical state is temporarily lost?
  • by roamzero ( 920097 ) <roamzero@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @02:25AM (#19884785)

    Seems pretty straightforward to me. If we accept the hypothesis that consciousness is an illusion, there's not *really* a "you" to begin with. "You" are a process that your brain runs while it is active. So, when you restart your brain, your "you" process would run again like normal. If you duplicate your brain completely, there would be two "you"s running.
    Perhaps, but I think it's also a matter of perspective, you have to put yourself in the shoes of effected person. Whether this maintains the 'illusion', I dont know. Say your brain were duplicated while under, when you wake up which eyes would you be looking through? There is no direct connection between the two brains, so it would be impossible to be "looking" through 2 sets of eyes. My though is that each individual is like a singleton, and when destroyed, the question of reviving that "singleton" fully (you "wake up" from your perspective) or ending up with a clone that is different (you don't "wake up" from your perspective, a new singleton is made with your memories), is truly the mystery. It's basically a "first-hand" paradox. It's something that seemingly only you yourself could test. Otherwise, from a third-person perspective, it impossible to tell whether there is a continuation of the "original" you or something else. Maybe someday science will reveal a way to truly test this aspect of the universe, but for now I guess it sits in the realm of philosophy.
  • by Nefarious Wheel ( 628136 ) * on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @03:33AM (#19885073) Journal
    No, I'm not sure. How could I be? Yes there was massive trauma, but the entire experience was rather coherent and, as it turned out, consistent with considerable of the material I read on the subject since (many years since -- at 10 I read about cars and baseball, not metaphysics). I'm just not entirely certain that the trauma could explain such a consistent view of the proceedings -- I would have thought that if it were assembled from fragmented, aphashic disassociations caused by blunt trauma it would have looked more like a broken-mirror sort of thing. But it wasn't, it was like being in a flowing, gentle, painless 3D movie made up on the spot. None of my prior imaginings were anything like it, it was totally new. When the experience was over, I was fully conscious and aware, in my body -- just totally aphasic, with my attempts at speech turning into fragmented and inappropriate phraseology. I remember trying to say "I'm okay Dad" and having it come out "Teacup on the door is fraying" or some such. The only thing I could say coherently until after the surgery was to the doctor, "Can I go to sleep now?" I was adrenaline-awake until that point. So, despite the fun I'd have at myself by saying it was true OOB or simply an elegant synthesis put together by my meat server under stress, I don't know, and may never know the truth. But an honest self-appraisal puts it very firmly in the "undecided" basket, not one way or the other. I am sure, however, that we don't know everything about the subject of death yet, or the persistence that software image we call "consciousness" yet. It did provide me with a strong set of questions, though, but I've bored you all enough.
  • Re:easy question (Score:3, Interesting)

    by robably ( 1044462 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @03:39AM (#19885107) Journal

    or where any "personality" goes when it's sleeping.
    No, because when you are sleeping there is still electrical activity in the brain - "a succession of mental states continually re-created in our brains, even during sleep" as the article says.

    This is asking the question of where "you" go when the power to your brain is switched off. It seems probable to me that - as neurons and the connections between them are modified, weakened, or strengthened by the signals that pass through them - when power is restored to the brain it has to move through these unique pathways and your consciousness is restarted based on the saved state.
  • by Dahamma ( 304068 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @03:52AM (#19885151)
    Um, no....
    Sorry, I don't read "arguments" that begin with "um".


    I was so tempted just to reply "I don't read 'arguments' that begin with 'um' *or* 'sorry'" - but I decided that it was only slightly wittier than either of the originals, and witty they were not.

    I find it hilarious that an article mentioning (focused on is too strong - despite the title it was about 4 paragraphs) an extremely low level process (ie possible mitochondrial-related rapid apoptosis of neurons after oxygen short-term deprivation as a leading cause of death in cardiac arrest) has resulted in some moronic moral battle between "keep what you kill" and "meat is murder".

    Your argument is stupidly off-topic for this article. So, here are two fun trains of thought to get you guys back on track:

    1) Your mitochondria, after millions of years, have not realized that we can usually revive the rest of your body after 10 minutes of cardiac arrest. Don't we wish they could figure that out. Maybe we could rise above other base "evolutionary" traits as well and learn to be more ethical to other living beings. Meat is murder!

    2) Your mitochondria, after millions of years, are the result of an amazing evolutionary process likely descended from symbiotic prokaryotes that now constitute the major energy-producing components of our bodies. Thanks to said little helpers and many other evolutionary advantages, we can enjoy a higher standard of living, often grow over 6' tall with the plentiful supply of meat and dairy, and even entertain the luxury of pondering ethics and morality on slashdot. Meat, it's what's for dinner!

    Pick your pseudo-religious viewpoint, and go at it!
  • by tzot ( 834456 ) <antislsh@medbar.gr> on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @06:56AM (#19885761) Homepage
    Why did I have the impression this is a well established fact? In addition, mitochondria not signalling the cell to die is the main reason that cancer cells don't die. It's many months now [ualberta.ca] that research into dichloroacetate (DCA), which has been used for other purposes too, causes cancer-cell mitochondria to resume their operation and cause the cells to eventually die. See an example [nature.com] of a similar report.
  • by nickname225 ( 840560 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @10:48AM (#19887365)
    I highly recommend "Power, Sex, Suicide - Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life" by Nick Lane. It is literally on of the most fascinating books I have ever read. Right up there with "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.
  • by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @12:56PM (#19889329)
    I'm just wondering - why should you be allowed to eat healthy wild pheasants, while others have to stick to farm raised chicken?

    First, I'm not "allowed" to, rather - I pay a lot of money to be able to. Most states have very high licensing fees and taxes that they extract from people who apply to hunt in their states, and which they take during the purchase of everything from ammunition to pocket knives and mosquito repellent sold in sporting goods stores. In my state, the fees collected from the DNR's licensing of hunters and the taxes collected when they spend the fortune that they do on equipment and services is one of the primary sources of revenue used to fund wildlife management, wardens, and more.

    There are virtually no wild pheasant in my state. None of them are native to the U.S. Such populations as have taken up residence in the States were brought over from Asia specifically to raise as food... and they thrive in certain areas. South Dakota, for example, is now home to untold millions of birds, and the few precious weeks of the pheasant season there is one of the biggest parts of their local economy, with hunters traveling from all over the country to enjoy the scenery, the challenge, and to fill their coolers with that wonderful meat. The state governs the limits that each hunter can take, and use reporting mechanisms to keep an eye on the bird population and the terrain that supports them. You're right that our huge population could not subsist entirely on non-domesticated critter meat.

    That being said... back here in my own state, we have a crushing over population of whitetail deer. It's a real problem. There are more deer on the eastern seaboard now than there were 500 years ago. Way more. Their natural predators are all but gone, and every suburban house with a line of woods behind it is just setting up another breeding habitat for more Bambis. The micro-range/density problems results in all sorts of disease and line-breeding genetic problems, and the huge population per acre tends to exacerbate problems with Lyme Disease, etc. The solution is more hunting. Things are way out of balance, and even a lot Just Love The Animals types are realizing that they'd rather see the herds thinned out with a swift shot from a talented hunter than see an animal dying from a broken back on the side of the road (with who knows what risk to the person driving the car that hit it).

    In 2006, hunters in my state provided hundreds of thousands of meals to homeless shelters and other organizations that feed people who don't get enough quality protein. If I had my way and could take 15 or 20 deer per season, I'd probably end up keeping mostly loin and roasting meat, and the remaining several hundred pounds of lean, healthy meat would make fantastic sausage or stew for a LOT of hungry mouths. The problem? The very places where the deer are so overrunning the local terrain are the spots that, because of concerns for sensitive suburbanites, hunting isn't allowed. In some cases, that's a safety issue. In others, it's just poor judgement. Either way, the deer population continues to grow out of control, and the situation is dangerous and unhealthy for them and us. We could re-introduce wolves and more coyotes, but that doesn't go over too well with the soccer moms, either.

    Incidentally: the wild turkey was hunted almost to extinction in the US, mostly during the Great Depression - strictly as a source of food for people out of work. And they are indeed good eating. The same modern state game agencies that us hunters fund have managed that species back into true abundance (arguably, again, over-abundance in some places). But no one is allowed to just go out and hunt them... you have to pay the state. Which makes for pretty expensive meals, by the pound. But when I'm out in the woods (picking up trash, narking on poachers, reporting things I see to the game management people, etc) I'm more than happy to take all of that overhead in stride. Hunters, through their actions and thei
  • by Muad'Dave ( 255648 ) on Tuesday July 17, 2007 @02:38PM (#19890953) Homepage
    Just use pre-seasoned shot! [seasonshot.com]

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Working...